X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71C2B9FB21E for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 07:40:10 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 30376-02 for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 07:39:46 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com (nf-out-0910.google.com [64.233.182.191]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1F0C9FB24C for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 07:38:54 -0300 (ADT) Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id p77so136457nfc for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 03:38:47 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=rTnBcC/dR6/ozCi8ZcCNSCJyEy8HDug7PuznsjWaiKNATFmscvAUQcpA/swqJKvG4CNc8uNbJQjA7Aj//E8u9SI7a3w6ch8zjz82ls82+rN4WxcNtmGacZZ0oLqmMHqUfnGsXJ56RDMpksP21F15Lpa05li2wAaZuyV02qOd0HU= Received: by 10.49.5.12 with SMTP id h12mr502389nfi; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 03:38:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.49.64.6 with HTTP; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 03:38:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 12:38:46 +0200 From: "Kjell Tore Fossbakk" To: "Mikael Carneholm" Subject: Re: Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig Cc: "Luke Lonergan" , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: <7F10D26ECFA1FB458B89C5B4B0D72C2B4E4D9B@sesrv12.wirelesscar.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_2292_23741623.1154083126827" References: <7F10D26ECFA1FB458B89C5B4B0D72C2B4E4D9B@sesrv12.wirelesscar.com> X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.93 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL, HTML_40_50, HTML_MESSAGE, SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Level: * X-Archive-Number: 200607/264 X-Sequence-Number: 20124 ------=_Part_2292_23741623.1154083126827 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Hello. Unfortunately, I'm leaving for my vacation now, gone 3 weeks. When I'm back I'll run benchmarksql and bonnie++ and give the results here. The spec I will be using: Prolite DL585 2 x AMD/Opteron 64-bit 2,6GHZ 8G DDR PC3200 4 x 150G SCSI in SmartArray 5i Running Gentoo 2006.0 AMD_64 Hardened kernel Then I will remove the SmartArray 5i, and use a simple nonRAID SCSI controller and implement Linux software RAID, and re-run the tests. I'll give signal in 3 weeks - Kjell Tore. On 7/28/06, Mikael Carneholm wrote: > > Luke, > > Yeah, I read those results, and I'm very disappointed with my results > from the MSA1500. I would however be interested in other people's > bonnie++ and benchmarksql results using a similar machine (2 cpu dual > core opteron) with other "off the shelf" storage systems > (EMC/Netapp/Xyratex/../). Could you run benchmarksql against that > machine with the 16 SATA disk and 3Ware 9550SX SATA RAID adapters? It > would be *very* interesting to see how the I/O performance correlates to > benchmarksql (postgres) transaction throughout. > > /Mikael > > -----Original Message----- > From: Luke Lonergan [mailto:LLonergan@greenplum.com] > Sent: den 28 juli 2006 11:17 > To: Mikael Carneholm; Kjell Tore Fossbakk; > pgsql-performance@postgresql.org > Subject: RE: [PERFORM] Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig > > Mikael, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Mikael Carneholm [mailto:Mikael.Carneholm@WirelessCar.com] > > Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 2:05 AM > > > > My bonnie++ results are found in this message: > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2006-07/msg00164.php > > > > Apologies if I've already said this, but those bonnie++ results are very > disappointing. The sequential transfer rates between 20MB/s and 57MB/s > are slower than a single SATA disk, and your SCSI disks might even do > 80MB/s sequential transfer rate each. > > Random access is also very poor, though perhaps equal to 5 disk drives > at 500/second. > > By comparison, we routinely get 950MB/s sequential transfer rate using > 16 SATA disks and 3Ware 9550SX SATA RAID adapters on Linux. > > On Solaris ZFS on an X4500, we recently got this bonnie++ result on 36 > SATA disk drives in RAID10 (single thread first): > > Version 1.03 ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- > --Random- > -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- > --Block-- --Seeks-- > Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec > %CP /sec %CP > thumperdw-i-1 32G 120453 99 467814 98 290391 58 109371 99 993344 > 94 1801 4 > ------Sequential Create------ --------Random > Create-------- > -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- > -Delete-- > files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP > /sec %CP > 16 +++++ +++ +++++ +++ +++++ +++ 30850 99 +++++ +++ > +++++ +++ > > Bumping up the number of concurrent processes to 2, we get about 1.5x > speed reads of RAID10 with a concurrent workload (you have to add the > rates together): > > Version 1.03 ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- > --Random- > -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- > --Seeks-- > Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec > %CP /sec %CP > thumperdw-i-1 32G 111441 95 212536 54 171798 51 106184 98 719472 > 88 1233 2 > ------Sequential Create------ --------Random > Create-------- > -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- > -Delete-- > files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP > /sec %CP > 16 26085 90 +++++ +++ 5700 98 21448 97 +++++ +++ > 4381 97 > > Version 1.03 ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- > --Random- > -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- > --Block-- --Seeks-- > Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec > %CP /sec %CP > thumperdw-i-1 32G 116355 99 212509 54 171647 50 106112 98 715030 > 87 1274 3 > ------Sequential Create------ --------Random > Create-------- > -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- > -Delete-- > files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP > /sec %CP > 16 26082 99 +++++ +++ 5588 98 21399 88 +++++ +++ > 4272 97 > > So that's 2500 seeks per second, 1440MB/s sequential block read, 212MB/s > per character sequential read. > > - Luke > > > -- "Be nice to people on your way up because you meet them on your way down." ------=_Part_2292_23741623.1154083126827 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Hello.

Unfortunately, I'm leaving for my vacation now, gone 3 weeks. When I'm back I'll run benchmarksql and bonnie++ and give the results here.

The spec I will be using:

Prolite DL585
2 x AMD/Opteron 64-bit 2,6GHZ
8G DDR PC3200
4 x 150G SCSI in SmartArray 5i
Running Gentoo 2006.0 AMD_64 Hardened kernel

Then I will remove the SmartArray 5i, and use a simple nonRAID SCSI controller and implement Linux software RAID, and re-run the tests.

I'll give signal in 3 weeks

- Kjell Tore.

On 7/28/06, Mikael Carneholm <Mikael.Carneholm@wirelesscar.com> wrote:
Luke,

Yeah, I read those results, and I'm very disappointed with my results
from the MSA1500. I would however be interested in other people's
bonnie++ and benchmarksql results using a similar machine (2 cpu dual
core opteron) with other "off the shelf" storage systems
(EMC/Netapp/Xyratex/../). Could you run benchmarksql against that
machine with the 16 SATA disk and 3Ware 9550SX SATA RAID adapters? It
would be *very* interesting to see how the I/O performance correlates to
benchmarksql (postgres) transaction throughout.

/Mikael

-----Original Message-----
From: Luke Lonergan [mailto: LLonergan@greenplum.com]
Sent: den 28 juli 2006 11:17
To: Mikael Carneholm; Kjell Tore Fossbakk;
pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: RE: [PERFORM] Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig

Mikael,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mikael Carneholm [mailto:Mikael.Carneholm@WirelessCar.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 2:05 AM
>
> My bonnie++ results are found in this message:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2006-07/msg00164.php
>

Apologies if I've already said this, but those bonnie++ results are very
disappointing.  The sequential transfer rates between 20MB/s and 57MB/s
are slower than a single SATA disk, and your SCSI disks might even do
80MB/s sequential transfer rate each.

Random access is also very poor, though perhaps equal to 5 disk drives
at 500/second.

By comparison, we routinely get 950MB/s sequential transfer rate using
16 SATA disks and 3Ware 9550SX SATA RAID adapters on Linux.

On Solaris ZFS on an X4500, we recently got this bonnie++ result on 36
SATA disk drives in RAID10 (single thread first):

Version  1.03       ------Sequential Output------    --Sequential Input-
--Random-
                    -Per Chr-  --Block--  -Rewrite-  -Per Chr-
--Block--  --Seeks--
Machine        Size K/sec  %CP K/sec  %CP K/sec  %CP K/sec  %CP K/sec
%CP /sec %CP
thumperdw-i-1   32G 120453  99 467814  98 290391  58 109371  99 993344
94 1801   4
                    ------Sequential Create------ --------Random
Create--------
                    -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read---
-Delete--
              files  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP
/sec %CP
                 16 +++++ +++ +++++ +++ +++++ +++ 30850  99 +++++ +++
+++++ +++

Bumping up the number of concurrent processes to 2, we get about 1.5x
speed reads of RAID10 with a concurrent workload (you have to add the
rates together):

Version  1.03       ------Sequential Output------   --Sequential Input-
--Random-
                    -Per Chr- --Block--  -Rewrite-  -Per Chr-  --Block--
--Seeks--
Machine        Size K/sec  %CP K/sec  %CP K/sec  %CP K/sec  %CP K/sec
%CP  /sec %CP
thumperdw-i-1   32G 111441  95 212536  54 171798  51 106184  98 719472
88  1233   2
                    ------Sequential Create------ --------Random
Create--------
                    -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read---
-Delete--
              files  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP
/sec %CP
                 16 26085  90 +++++ +++  5700  98 21448  97 +++++ +++
4381  97

Version  1.03       ------Sequential Output------   --Sequential Input-
--Random-
                    -Per Chr-  --Block--  -Rewrite-  -Per Chr-
--Block--   --Seeks--
Machine        Size K/sec  %CP K/sec  %CP K/sec  %CP K/sec  %CP K/sec
%CP  /sec %CP
thumperdw-i-1   32G 116355  99 212509  54 171647  50 106112  98 715030
87  1274   3
                    ------Sequential Create------ --------Random
Create--------
                    -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read---
-Delete--
              files  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP
/sec %CP
                 16 26082  99 +++++ +++  5588  98 21399  88 +++++ +++
4272  97

So that's 2500 seeks per second, 1440MB/s sequential block read, 212MB/s
per character sequential read.

- Luke





--
"Be nice to people on your way up because you meet them on your way down." ------=_Part_2292_23741623.1154083126827--